EMANUEL LASKER (born Dec-24-1868, died Jan-11-1941, 72 years old) Germany [what is this?] Emanuel Lasker was the second official World Chess Champion, reigning for a record 27 years after he defeated the first World Champion, Wilhelm Steinitz, in 1894. Statistician Jeff Sonas of Chessmetrics writes, "if you look across players' entire careers, there is a significant amount of statistical evidence to support the claim that Emanuel Lasker was, in fact, the most dominant player of all time." http://en.chessbase.com/post/the-gr... By Sonas' reckoning, Lasker was the No. 1 player in the world for a total of 24.3 years between 1890 and 1926. Only Kasparov (21.9 years) even approaches this. Background Lasker was born in what was then Berlinchen (literally "little Berlin") in Prussia, and which is now Barlinek in Poland. In 1880, he went to school in Berlin, where he lived with his older brother Berthold Lasker, who was studying medicine, and who taught him how to play chess. By Chessmetrics' analysis, Berthold was one of the world's top ten players in the early 1890s. Tournaments Soon after Lasker obtained his abitur in Landsberg an der Warthe, now a Polish town named Gorzow Wielkopolski, the teenager's first tournament success came when he won the Café Kaiserhof's annual Winter tournament 1888/89, winning all 20 games. Soon afterwards, he tied with Emil von Feyerfeil with 12/15 (+11 -2 =2) at the second division tournament of the sixth DSB Congress in Breslau, defeating von Feyerfeil in the one game play-off.* Also in 1889, he came second with 6/8 (+5 -1 =2) behind Amos Burn at the Amsterdam "A" (stronger) tournament, ahead of James Mason and Isidor Gunsberg, two of the strongest players of that time. In 1890 he finished third in Graz behind Gyula Makovetz and Johann Hermann Bauer, then shared first prize with his brother Berthold in a tournament in Berlin. In spring 1892, he won two tournaments in London, the second and stronger of these without losing a game. At New York 1893, he won all thirteen games, one of a small number of significant tournaments in history in which a player achieved a perfect score. Wikipedia article: List of world records in chess#Perfect tournament and match scores After Lasker won the title, he answered his critics who considered that the title match was by an unproven player against an aging champion by being on the leader board in every tournament before World War I, including wins at St Petersburg in 1895-96, Nurenberg 1896, London 1899, Paris 1900 ahead of Harry Nelson Pillsbury (by two points with a score of +14 −1 =1), Trenton Falls 1906, and St Petersburg in 1914. He also came 3rd at Hastings 1895 (this relatively poor result possibly occurring during convalescence after nearly dying from typhoid fever), 2nd at Cambridge Springs in 1904, and =1st at the Chigorin Memorial tournament in St Petersburg in 1909. In 1918, a few months after the war, Lasker won a quadrangular tournament in Berlin against Akiba Rubinstein, Carl Schlechter and Siegbert Tarrasch. After he lost the title in 1921, Lasker remained in the top rank of players, winning at Maehrisch-Ostrau (1923) ahead of Richard Reti, Ernst Gruenfeld, Alexey Selezniev, Savielly Tartakower, and Max Euwe. His last tournament win was at New York 1924, where he scored 80% and finished 1.5 points ahead of Jose Raul Capablanca, followed by Alexander Alekhine and Frank Marshall. In 1925, he came 2nd at Moscow behind Efim Bogoljubov and ahead of Capablanca, Marshall, Tartakower, and Carlos Torre Repetto. There followed a long hiatus from chess caused by his intention to retire from the game, but he re-emerged in top-class chess in 1934, placing 5th in Zurich behind Alekhine, Euwe, Salomon Flohr and Bogoljubow and ahead of Ossip Bernstein, Aron Nimzowitsch, and Gideon Stahlberg. In Moscow in 1935, Lasker finished in an undefeated third place, a half point behind Mikhail Botvinnik and Flohr and ahead of Capablanca, Rudolf Spielmann, unknown player, Grigory Levenfish, Andre Lilienthal, and Viacheslav Ragozin. Reuben Fine hailed the 66-year-old Lasker's performance as "a biological miracle". In 1936, Lasker placed 6th in Moscow and finished his career later that year at Nottingham when he came =7th with 8.5/14 (+6 -3 =5), his last-round game being the following stylish win: Lasker vs C H Alexander, 1936. Matches Non-title matches 1889 saw his long career in match play commence, one which only ceased upon relinquishing his title in 1921. He won nearly of his matches, apart from a few drawn mini-matches, including a drawn one-game play-off match against his brother Berthold in Berlin in 1890, losing only exhibition matches with Mikhail Chigorin, Carl Schlechter and Marshall, and a knight-odds match against Nellie Showalter, Jackson Showalter's wife. In 1889, he defeated Curt von Bardeleben (+1 =2) and in 1889-90 he beat Jacques Mieses (+5 =3). In 1890, he defeated Henry Bird (+7 -2 =3) and Nicholas Theodore Miniati (+3 =2 -0), and in 1891 he beat Francis Joseph Lee (+1 =1) and Berthold Englisch (+2 =3). 1892 and 1893 saw Lasker getting into his stride into the lead up to his title match with Steinitz, beating Bird a second time (5-0) Lasker - Bird (1892) , Joseph Henry Blackburne (+6 =4), Jackson Whipps Showalter (+6 -2 =2) and Celso Golmayo Zupide (+2 =1). In 1892, Lasker toured and played a series of mini-matches against leading players in the Manhattan, Brooklyn and Franklin Chess Clubs. At the Manhattan Chess Club, he played a series of three-game matches, defeating James Moore Hanham, Gustave Simonson, David Graham Baird, Charles B Isaacson, Albert Hodges, Eugene Delmar, John S Ryan and John Washington Baird of the 24 games he played against these players he won 21, losing one to Hodges and drawing one each with Simonson and Delmar. At the Brooklyn Chess Club, Lasker played two mini-matches of two games each, winning each game against Abel Edward Blackmar and William M De Visser, and drew the first game of an unfinished match against Philip Richardson. Lasker finished 1892 at the Franklin Chess Club by playing 5 mini-matches of two games each against its leading players, winning every game against Dion Martinez, Alfred K Robinson, unknown player and Hermann G Voigt and drawing a match (+1 -1) with Walter Penn Shipley. Shipley offered cash bonuses if he could stipulate the openings and taking up the challenge, Lasker played the Two Knight's Defense and won in 38 moves, while in the second game, Shipley won as Black in 24 moves against Lasker playing the White end of a Vienna Gambit, Steinitz variation (Opening Explorer). Shipley, who counted both Lasker and Steinitz as his friends, was instrumental in arranging the Philadelphia leg of the Lasker-Steinitz match, that being games 9, 10 and 11. 29 years later, Shipley was also the referee of Lasker's title match with Capablanca. In 1892-3, Lasker also played and won some other matches against lesser players including Andres Clemente Vazquez (3-0), A Ponce (first name Albert) (2-0) and Alfred K Ettlinger (5-0). Also in 1893, Mrs. Nellie Showalter, wife of Jackson Showalter and one of the leading women players in the USA, defeated Lasker 5-2 in a match receiving Knight odds. These matches pushed Lasker to the forefront of chess, and after being refused a match by Tarrasch, he defeated Steinitz for the world title in 1894 after spreadeagling the field at New York 1893. While he was World Champion, Lasker played some non-title matches, the earliest of which was a six-game exhibition match against Chigorin in 1903 which he lost 2.5-3.5 (+1 -2 =3); the match was intended as a rigorous test of the Rice Gambit, which was the stipulated opening in each game. In the midst of his four title defenses that were held between 1907 and 1910, Lasker played and won what appears to have been a short training match against Abraham Speijer (+2 =1) in 1908. Also in 1908, he played another Rice Gambit-testing match, this time against Schlechter, again losing, this time by 1-4 (+0 =2 -3), apparently prompting a rethink of the Rice Gambit as a viable weapon.** In 1909 he drew a short match (2 wins 2 losses) against David Janowski and several months later they played a longer match that Lasker easily won (7 wins, 2 draws, 1 loss). Lasker accepted a return match and they played a title match in 1910 (details below). In 1914, he drew a 2 game exhibition match against Bernstein (+1 -1) and in 1916, he defeated Tarrasch in another, clearly non-title, match by 5.5-0.5. After Lasker lost his title in 1921, he is not known to have played another match until he lost a two-game exhibition match (=1 -1) against Marshall in 1940, a few months before he died. A match between Dr. Lasker and Dr. Vidmar had been planned for 1925, but it did not eventuate.*** World Championship matches The Steinitz - Lasker World Championship Match (1894) was played in New York, Philadelphia, and Montreal. Lasker won with 10 wins, 5 losses and 4 draws. Lasker also won the Lasker - Steinitz World Championship Rematch (1896), played in Moscow, with 10 wins, 2 losses, and 5 draws. At one stage when Rezso Charousek ‘s star was in the ascendant, Lasker was convinced he would eventually play a title match with the Hungarian master; unfortunately, Charousek died from tuberculosis in 1900, aged 26, before this could happen. As it turned out, he did not play another World Championship for 11 years until the Lasker - Marshall World Championship Match (1907), which was played in New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Baltimore, Chicago, Memphis. Lasker won this easily, remaining undefeated with 8 wins and 7 draws. After a prolonged period of somewhat strained relations due to Tarrasch's refusal of Lasker's offer for a match, Lasker accepted Tarrasch's challenge for the title, and the Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship Match (1908) was played in Düsseldorf and Munich, with Lasker winning with 8 wins 3 losses and five draws. In 1910, Lasker came close to losing his title when he was trailing by a full point at the tenth and last game of the Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910) (the match being played in Vienna and Berlin); Schlechter held the advantage and could have drawn the game with ease on several occasions, however, he pursued a win, ultimately blundering a Queen endgame to relinquish his match lead and allow Lasker to retain the title. Some months later, the Lasker - Janowski World Championship Match (1910) - played in Berlin - was Lasker's final successful defense of his title, winning with 8 wins and 3 draws. In 1912 Lasker and Rubinstein, agreed to play a World Championship match in the fall of 1914 but the match was cancelled when World War I broke out. The war delayed all further title match negotiations until Lasker finally relinquished his title upon resigning from the Lasker - Capablanca World Championship Match (1921) in Havana while trailing by four games. Life, legacy and testimonials Lasker's extended absences from chess were due to his pursuit of other activities, including mathematics and philosophy. He spent the last years of the 19th century writing his doctorate. Between 1902 and 1907, he played only at Cambridge Springs, using his time in the US. It was during this period that he introduced the notion of a primary ideal, which corresponds to an irreducible variety and plays a role similar to prime powers in the prime decomposition of an integer. He proved the primary decomposition theorem for an ideal of a polynomial ring in terms of primary ideals in a paper Zur Theorie der Moduln und Ideale published in volume 60 of Mathematische Annalen in 1905. A commutative ring R is now called a 'Lasker ring' if every ideal of R can be represented as an intersection of a finite number of primary ideals. Lasker's results on the decomposition of ideals into primary ideals was the foundation on which Emmy Noether built an abstract theory which developed ring theory into a major mathematical topic and provided the foundations of modern algebraic geometry. Noether's Idealtheorie in Ringbereichen (1921) was of fundamental importance in the development of modern algebra, generalising Lasker's results by giving the decomposition of ideals into intersections of primary ideals in any commutative ring with ascending chain condition.**** After Lasker lost his title, he spent a considerable amount of time playing bridge and intended to retire. However, he returned to chess in the mid-thirties as he needed to raise money after the Nazis had confiscated his properties and life savings. After the tournament in Moscow in 1936, the Laskers were encouraged to stay on and Emanuel accepted an invitation to become a member of the Moscow Academy of Science to pursue his mathematical studies, with both he and his wife, Martha, taking up permanent residence in Moscow. At this time, he also renounced his German citizenship and took on Soviet citizenship. Although Stalin's purges prompted the Laskers to migrate to the USA in 1937, it is unclear whether they ever renounced their Soviet citizenship. Lasker was friends with Albert Einstein who wrote the introduction to the posthumous biography Emanuel Lasker, The Life of a Chess Master by Dr. Jacques Hannak (1952), writing: Emanuel Lasker was undoubtedly one of the most interesting people I came to know in my later years. We must be thankful to those who have penned the story of his life for this and succeeding generations. For there are few men who have had a warm interest in all the great human problems and at the same time kept their personality so uniquely independent. Lasker published several chess books but as he was also a mathematician, games theorist, philosopher and even playwright, he published books in all these fields, except for the play which was performed on only one occasion. As a youth, his parents had recognised his potential and sent him to study in Berlin where he first learned to play serious chess. After he graduated from high school, he studied mathematics and philosophy at the universities in Berlin, Göttingen and Heidelberg. Lasker died in the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York in 1941, aged 72, and was buried in the Beth Olom Cemetery in Queens. He was survived by his wife and his sister, Lotta. On May 6, 2008, Dr. Lasker was among the first 40 German sportsmen to be elected into the "Hall of Fame des Deutschen Sports". ****** "It is not possible to learn much from him. One can only stand and wonder." - <Max Euwe> Euwe lost all three of his games against Lasker, the most lopsided result between any two world champions. "My chess hero" - <Viktor Korchnoi> "The greatest of the champions was, of course, Emanuel Lasker" - <Mikhail Tal> "Lies and hypocrisy do not survive for long on the chessboard. The creative combination lies bare the presumption of a lie, while the merciless fact, culminating in a checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite." – <Emanuel Lasker> ******* * E von Feyerfeil vs Lasker, 1889** http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... *** User: Karpova: Emanuel Lasker (kibitz #1449) Notes Lasker played on the following consultation chess teams Em. Lasker / MacDonnell, Lasker / Taubenhaus, Em. Lasker / Maroczy, Em. Lasker / I Rice, Em. Lasker / Barasz / Breyer, Lasker / Pillsbury, Lasker / Chigorin / Marshall / Teichmann, Emanuel Lasker / William Ward-Higgs, Emanuel Lasker / Heinrich Wolf, Emanuel Lasker / Hermann Keidanski & Em. Lasker / L Lasek. Wikipedia article: Emanuel Lasker http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... Last updated: 2023-04-08 21:10:05

Try our new games table.

page 1 of 62; games 1-25 of 1,537  Game   Result Moves Year Event/Locale Opening 1. Lasker vs NN 1-0 10 1887 Odds game 000 Chess variants 2. NN vs Lasker   0-1 33 1889 Simul C41 Philidor Defense 3. A Reif vs Lasker 0-1 13 1889 Breslau Hauptturnier A A02 Bird's Opening 4. V Tietz vs Lasker 0-1 40 1889 Breslau Hauptturnier A C79 Ruy Lopez, Steinitz Defense Deferred 5. H Seger vs Lasker 0-1 36 1889 Hauptturnier Winners' Group D30 Queen's Gambit Declined 6. L Mabillis vs Lasker 0-1 24 1889 Hauptturnier Winners' Group C60 Ruy Lopez 7. Lasker vs Lipke 1-0 47 1889 Hauptturnier Winners' Group C26 Vienna 8. E von Feyerfeil vs Lasker 1-0 42 1889 Hauptturnier Winners' Group C30 King's Gambit Declined 9. E von Feyerfeil vs Lasker 0-1 47 1889 Hauptturnier play-off D00 Queen's Pawn Game 10. Lasker vs J Bauer 1-0 38 1889 Amsterdam A03 Bird's Opening 11. Lasker vs A van Foreest 1-0 50 1889 Amsterdam A04 Reti Opening 12. R Loman vs Lasker 0-1 22 1889 Amsterdam C79 Ruy Lopez, Steinitz Defense Deferred 13. L van Vliet vs Lasker 1-0 24 1889 Amsterdam C41 Philidor Defense 14. R Leather vs Lasker 0-1 56 1889 Amsterdam A07 King's Indian Attack 15. Gunsberg vs Lasker 0-1 35 1889 Amsterdam C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense 16. Lasker vs Mason ½-½ 38 1889 Amsterdam C46 Three Knights 17. Lasker vs S Polner 0-1 21 1889 Casual game C26 Vienna 18. Lasker vs Burn ½-½ 15 1889 Amsterdam C01 French, Exchange 19. J Mieses vs Lasker 0-1 28 1889 Casual game A07 King's Indian Attack 20. von Bardeleben vs Lasker ½-½ 27 1889 Lasker - Bardeleben m D50 Queen's Gambit Declined 21. Lasker vs von Bardeleben 1-0 47 1889 Lasker - Bardeleben m B06 Robatsch 22. von Bardeleben vs Lasker 1-0 50 1889 Lasker - Bardeleben m C26 Vienna 23. Lasker vs J Mieses 1-0 37 1889 Lasker - Mieses 1889/90 A80 Dutch 24. J Mieses vs Lasker ½-½ 60 1889 Lasker - Mieses 1889/90 A07 King's Indian Attack 25. Lasker vs J Mieses ½-½ 70 1890 Lasker - Mieses 1889/90 D21 Queen's Gambit Accepted  page 1 of 62; games 1-25 of 1,537

REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Lasker wins | Lasker loses

< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 99 OF 99 ·  Later Kibitzing> May-11-23    Nosnibor: What is noticeable in the games collected here is numerous losses to opponents in simultaneous games. Naturally the local press pick up these results and they become published but Lasker probably won more than another 1000 games in these exhibitions which are not reflected here. May-11-23    stone free or die: <<Nosnibor> Naturally the local press pick up these results and they become published but Lasker probably won more than another 1000 games in these exhibitions which are not reflected here.> This is true, though sometimes a player will submit a great win by a master to a chess magazine. Other times a slew of games might become available from a club or team (again, usually in a chess magazine vs. a newspaper). It's always nice to have the simul scores on <CG>, and the newspapers almost always include that piece of info. <TheFocus> used to post those often on game pages (though unfortunately w/o his sources). Jun-08-23    perfidious: It seems Lasker and Capablanca reconciled late in life, per info posted by Winter: https://www.chesshistory.com/winter... Jun-09-23    Damenlaeuferbauer: <perfidious>: Thank you for that yery interesting link! I noticed in the last few years, that (like Jose Raul Capablanca) a lot of people became much calmer and more friendly, when they were getting older. Maybe they recognized, that (their) life could end soon. Nov-27-23    Nosnibor: The following game was played at a simultaneous exhibition in Altrincham (St Mary`s) 2 April 1908.<White: Clara Miller> <Black: Emanuel Lasker> <Queen`s Pawn, London System DO2> 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 Nc6 4.e3 Bf5 5.Nbd2 e6 6.a3 Bd6 7.Bxd6 cxd6 8.c4 0-0 9.cxd5 exd5 10.Qb3 Qe7 11.Bd3 Be4 12.0-0 Rac8 13.Be2 Rc7 14.Rac1 Rfc8 15.Qd1 h6 16.Nh4 g5 17.Nxe4 dxe4 18.Nf5 Qf8 19.d5 Ne5 20.Rxc7 Rxc7 21.f4 exf3 22.Bxf3 Kh7 23.Qb1 Ng6 24.b4 Rc3 25.Qb2 Qc8 26.Nxd6 Qd8 27.Qxc3 Qxd6 28.Qc5 Qd8 29.d6 Nd7 30.Qc7 Qe8 31.Bg4 Qxe3+ 32.Kh1 Nde5 1-0 <Source: British Chess Magazine 1908 p.213. Nov-27-23    MissScarlett: You must double-check everything: C Millar vs Lasker, 1908 Nov-27-23    Nosnibor: I appear to be having one of those days! Thanks Missy. Dec-24-23    Mathematicar: Happy 155th birthay to our great mathematician among World Champions. Dec-24-23    offramp: 🎵YEAH! I'm eee to tha EM yeah two emms yeah in fact one EM to the AN to tha el yeah yeah.🎵🎵 Jan-27-24    stoy: David Hilbert was one of Lasker's teachers in mathematics. Jan-27-24    stone free or die: <David Hilbert> was *everybody's* teacher in mathematics! Apr-10-24    offramp: <Greetings, my friend. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember, my friend: Future events such as these will affect you in the future. You are interested in the unknown, the mysterious, the unexplainable. That is why you are here. And now, for the first time, we are bringing to you the full story of what happened on that fateful day. We are giving you all the evidence, based only on the secret testimony of the miserable souls who survived this terrifying ordeal. The incidents, the places. My friend, we cannot keep this a secret any longer. Let us punish the guilty; let us reward the innocent. My friend, can your heart stand the shocking facts about <Forward by Vladimir Kramnik!>?> Yeah! <<Emanuel Lasker> Volume 2: Choices and chances chess and other games of the mind by Richard Forster, Michael Negele & Raj Tischbierek <Forward> by Vladimir Kramnik!> Or possibly <foreword> by Kramnik. At https://chess.co.uk/products/emanue... £55. Apr-10-24    MissScarlett: Evan Creswell? Apr-15-24    thegoodanarchist: <Mathematicar: Happy 155th birthay to our great mathematician among World Champions.> You left someone out: Max Euwe Apr-15-24    thegoodanarchist: < stone free or die: <David Hilbert> was *everybody's* teacher in mathematics!> Well said! May-01-24    offramp: The time when Lasker was at his weakest, was when he became World Champion, 1894. Jun-16-24    offramp: I had a stroke of luck: I found a picture of Lasker wearing a brown tie. RESULT! https://www.wbookcompany.com/wp-con... On the same page I found a picture of a <brown Thai Laska>. SORTED! Here is the recipe of brown Thai Laksa: https://youtu.be/KccNVtm_4Oo?si=GXS... Aug-07-24    Fusilli: Kramnik on Lasker: <I think that Lasker is the discoverer of modern chess. When you look at Steinitz's games, they have a very 19th-century feel. And Lasker had many games that could be played by any modern player. Lasker is the first link in the chain of "global" chess, where different aspects of struggle are taken into consideration. Steinitz largely emphasized only one positional element. For instance, if he had a better pawn structure and an attack on the King, he thought that his advantage was decisive. And Lasker understood that there are different components of the position that balance each other. He discovered that there are various kinds of advantages, and they are interchangeable: tactical advantage can be transformed into strategic advantage, and vice versa. I think that Lasker was a much stronger chess player than Steinitz. It's telling that their 1894 World Championship match (let alone the return match) was completely one-sided. It seemed that two players of different level were playing. By modern criteria, we could say that one player was 2700-strong, and the other one 2400. That's why Lasker won so convincingly, he destroyed his opponent. This match impressed me thoroughly. I knew that Steinitz was a great chess player, and then I saw the games - he was destroyed in them. This shocked me, to be honest; I've never seen such a big level discrepancy in a World Championship match - as though it was a simultaneous display, not a championship match! Perhaps Steinitz had already passed his peak at the moment, but not as much - he still had decent results in tournaments. Lasker is a grand figure, he understood many global things in chess. I've recently looked through his games again and was amazed: for his time, Lasker knew so incredibly much! He was the first to understand the importance of psychological aspects of the struggle and used them to his own advantage, also he was the first to vary his strategy and even his style depending on the partner. On the other hand, Steinitz used only one conception: he thought that some things were always right and others always wrong. Lasker understood a very complex thing for the time: that chess as a game is so complex that it's completely unclear what's "right" and "wrong" way to play. You can play in very different manners. Lasker was very flexible and uncategorical, perhaps the first uncategorical player in history. He didn't think in categories, like, if you got the center, it's good, and if you didn't, it's bad. And that was a great step ahead in chess thought. I think that in the moment when Lasker dethroned Steinitz, he was so ahead of everyone else, like no-one else in history ever was. Until a new generation arrived, and competitors, like Tarrasch, upped their game, Lasker was head and shoulders above all others.> Source: https://e3e5.com/article.php?id=190 Translated here: https://www.chess.com/blog/SamCopel... (I edited two very minor things) Aug-08-24    6t4addict: <Fusilli> Thanks for posting Kramnik's views on Emanuel Lasker. Aug-09-24    offramp: I am adding to that great post by User: Fusilli. (Thanks to User: 6t4addict for giving him a +1.) Kramnik's opinions about his great predecessors are better than Kasparov's opinions, because I think Kramnik is a deeper thinker, and more comprehensive in his reading. His small articles, in Russian, are very interesting. I'd like to see them in book form. Gelfand wrote various very good books. Kramnik should produce a book great books of the past - and he would bring out better books than Kasparov. Aug-09-24    keypusher: I read that years ago, and I thought it was lost and gone from the internet. Thanks for digging it up, Fusilli! Jan-01-25    Chessical: Lasker's thoughts on chess. A lecture by the world champion. According to the "Berliner Tageblatt" of December 13th, 1908. Berlin's chess life has blossomed anew. Almost three decades have passed since the last two major tournaments brought the masters together within its walls, and Berliners still do not have their own clubhouse like Vienna, Nuremberg and other cities have. But interest in chess is growing day by day. Almost every week an interesting chess event takes place in Berlin, to which hundreds of chess fans flock. Only recently Marshall and Mieses played their match, which was followed by the contest between Marshall and Gregory, and on the evening of December 12th, the world champion Dr. Emanuel Lasker, who recently defended his dignity so successfully against the Nuremberg master Dr. Tarrasch, gave a lecture to a large audience in the Berlin Architects' House, in which he developed his thoughts on chess in philosophical form. He wanted to demonstrate the connection between the basic ideas of the game and the problems of life and wanted to show that one should learn something practical for life from chess. Just as a child's game is a preparation for later life, so too is chess a wise guide for the struggles that existence demands. One must be economical with one's strengths, must position them so that they work best, so that they can retreat at the right moment. It is infinitely more advantageous to gain a small benefit than to follow a great but fantastic plan. What the present demands is the decisive factor. All moods must be put aside. The "fighter" does his work tirelessly, while the moody person almost always fails to respond to the crisis. It is not cunning alone that wins victory, as so many people believe, but a mysterious something that Lasker described with the word "strength". Strangely, the concept of strength was only discovered so late, not only in chess, but also in diplomacy and in art. Machiavelli and Taillerand taught that diplomacy is based on cunning, and it was Bismarck who first openly expressed that only strength can lead to victory. Strength is a purposeful approach to human abilities, which is in contrast to the creations of the imagination. That was the secret of the young American Morphy, who came to Europe and overcame all the famous masters in a rapid victory run. He knew that the greater effect of all the small advantages with which he placed his pieces would ultimately have to prevail. But he also knew that one must not go beyond strength. The strength offered must be proportional to the goals pursued. A little too much out of tune. The other, more recent masters learned from Morphy. But it was only after a long time that they were able to gain general recognition. Today, clever, economical management of the forces given is something that is taken for granted, and everyone knows that they will not get anywhere without this principle and not only in chess. Unfortunately, Lasker broke off his lecture at the moment when people were expecting explanations about his own playing practice. After all, he is also someone who, like Morphy, won the palm in a rapid victory run. But he did not reveal the secret, and one must be content with the conclusion that he combines his goal-oriented approach to the game with a good deal of cunning and imagination. Source: (Neue) Wiener Schachzeitung, February 1909, p.57 - 58. Jan-26-25    Chessical: The "Wiener Schach-Zeitung's" writers: Tartakower, emphasized Lasker's significant contributions to chess, particularly his pioneering concept of "psychological chess." This approach involves understanding the opponent's individuality, weaknesses, and strengths to achieve victory. Tartakower also highlighted Lasker's ability to constantly change and rejuvenate his style of play, even within the same tournament or opening variations. He went on to emphasize Lasker's belief in the "elasticity" of the position, contrasting it with the rigid approaches of other chess masters. He suggests that Lasker's style is not bound by traditional schools of thought or trends, but rather by a focus on "hypermodern" principles, embracing unconventional ideas and constantly seeking new and creative approaches. "While Morphy believes in miracles, or Tarrasch in dogmas, Dr. Lasker's concepts are guided in particular by his rock-solid trust in the elasticity of the position. Only in this way, and not with the usual pompous terms (such as "individual style", "principle of will" etc.) can the versatility of his chess work be explained, which has set him apart from all schools, trends and imitations for decades, but which currently allows the entire ultra-modern chess effort to be derived from him!"  Hans Kmoch entiled his piece "Lasker, the ideal theoretician". By this Kmoch did not mean a master who knew a lot of opening theory but, "In a higher sense, the word "theorist" should describe a person who not only knows the countless principles (not lines!), but also knows how to correctly differentiate between them and apply them! A "practitioner" is then understood to be someone who, without any prior theoretical knowledge, gets by with momentary ideas in various situations. A matter of skill! With this interpretation, Dr. Lasker suddenly appears to us in a completely new light, namely as the ideal theorist! Anyone who wants to take the trouble, or rather the pleasure, of tracing Lasker's train of thought, should read carefully any of his works. And you will see that Dr. Lasker always holds on to sacred principles, principles in which he has complete faith, which he has recognized in their full scope as a philosopher and which he knows how to use as a fighter with perfect skill. And his principles are calibrated. He did not draw them from chess books, but from the struggle of life; they are the principles of struggle according to which every fight, including chess, is carried out." Reti believed Lasker is not only a chess master but also a mathematician and philosopher, highlighting his diverse talents and contributions beyond chess. He emphasized Lasker's "common sense" approach to chess, rejecting dogmas and mysticism and focusing on objectivity. Reti argued that Lasker's ability to criticize and recognize unhealthy excesses in chess has contributed to the progress of the game. He discussed Lasker's philosophical view of chess as a "combat problem," leading Lasker to emphasize psychological understanding and exploiting opponent's weaknesses. Reti concluded by suggesting that Lasker's influence has shaped modern chess into a battle of personalities, where psychological aspects are crucial. Nimzovich sought to re-examine the common belief that Lasker's style of play was incredibly versatile. He assessed Lasker's skills in prophylaxis and manoeuvring and his ability to manage weak colour complexes. highlighting Lasker's mastery in exploiting such weaknesses. "Lasker played wonderful games of this kind 20 or 30 years ago. We only need to remember his game against Tartakower at St. Petersburg in 1909. The virtuoso inconspicuousness with which he always managed to create a basis for white and black square operations at an early stage can still be described as unsurpassed today, despite Alekhine, who made this stratagem his speciality.   He praised Lasker's ability to manoeuvre as being unparalleled, even compared to other grandmasters. Nimzovich noted that Lasker's approach to protecting squares by "far-sighted consolidation measures" was individual but still effective. He emphasized Lasker's advanced understanding of prophylaxis, noting that Lasker was using complex prophylactic strategies long before they were recognized by others. "Only 14 years ago, Dr. Tarrasch had made the "mysterious rook move" the target of his ridicule. But if one considers that the rook move in question is in a way one of the basic principles of prophylaxis and if one also takes into account that Tarrasch was the pinnacle of chess scholarship until about 1911, one can appreciate how many years ahead of his time Lasker must have been, he who knew how to apply the most complex prophylactic strategies 30 years ago."Nimzovich concluded by saying that Lasker possesses both "fantasy" and "precision" in his play exemplifying "wonderful, almost brilliant versatility!".   Jan-26-25    Chessical: The "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", no.1 of January 1929 dedicated itself to a tribute to Dr Lasker. "In this issue, qualified writers have reserved the task of reminding all chess fans of the everlasting significance of the Lasker phenomenon, even those who, in our fast-moving times, only think of the greats of recent years and of the tournaments of recent times." All of the writers have a high opinion of Lasker as a brilliant and original chess player who created a lasting legacy in the game. They believe that his contributions to chess were significant and that his understanding of the game was far ahead of his time. Their common view of Lasker's abilities is that he was a versatile and innovative chess player who was ahead of his time. He was particularly known for his psychological approach to the game, which involved understanding and exploiting the weaknesses of his opponents. He was also known for his constantly changing and rejuvenating style of play, which made it difficult for his opponents to prepare for him. Lasker was a master of all aspects of the game, from the opening to the endgame, and he was able to adapt his style to any situation. He was also a creative and imaginative player who was always looking for new and better ways to play the game. Jan-26-25    stone free or die: As an indication of Lasker's superiority during the bulk of his reign, here's <EDOchess>'s leaderboard for the period 1890-1920: http://www.edochess.ca/top.graphs/g... Only two players really came close to Lasker's rating before Capablanca's ascension - Tarrasch and Maroczy. Jump to page #   (enter # from 1 to 99) search thread:    < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 99 OF 99 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines: No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members. Nothing in violation of United States law. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members. No trolling. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times. See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator. NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific player only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC